Latest news with #SmallBusinessDevelopmentCenters
The Hill
a day ago
- Business
- The Hill
Does your business have a Plan B for the Trump tariffs?
I have a client in New Jersey who manufactures industrial films. A big source of their supply comes from two Chinese companies. You would think with President Trump's tariffs they would be suffering, right? Luckily, the owner of the company (and her partner) paid attention. Going all the way back to 2023 they knew — like we all knew — that the presidential election would be tight. By mid-2024 it got even tighter. And what was then-candidate Trump saying back then? He was promising significant tax cuts but providing no answers as to how they would be funded. He was promising to overturn many of the Biden administration's regulations, from environmental to DEI to overtime pay. He was promising to deport millions of undocumented immigrants. But more importantly to my client, Trump was planning on handing down big tariffs, especially targeted at China. And they took him seriously. They're not Trump supporters, but they are pragmatists. So back in 2023 they started searching for alternative suppliers. They reached out to nonprofits like the World Trade Center Association and Small Business Development Centers, and they got help from the International Trade Administration. They traveled to India, Malaysia and Brazil. They realized that if Trump was elected, their main source of supply would be seriously threatened. They also understood that the Biden administration was no big fan of China either. You can't run a business that's dependent on such a precarious source of supply that it could be seriously disrupted by a single politician. So they took action. Unfortunately, some business owners didn't. The media has been reporting about small businesses that are now suffering because of Trump's tariffs. A steel products manufacturer in Salt Lake City says his company could be 'devastated.' A flower shop owner in California that buys products from South America laments the significant increase in her costs. Two Iowa business owners, who buy 75-80 percent of their products from overseas, are looking at a 'nightmare' holiday season. According to a CNN report, a high-end electronics manufacturer has had to cut employee hours, and a guitar seller fears the 'mass extinction' of small businesses. I feel bad for these business owners, but life isn't fair. And history repeats itself. Businesses, regardless of their size, are always at the mercy of government interventions. Today is no different. Which is why my client and her partner, having read history, took Trump's tariff warnings seriously. They're smart. And like the many other smart business people I have met, they share one common characteristic: They're always looking ahead. They always have a Plan B. They diversify. Investors know that too much reliance on one party creates risk. There's a reason the SEC requires that companies disclose in their financial statements when a customer represents more than 10 percent of their business. The flower-seller, guitar maker and electronics manufacturer all relied too heavily on foreign supply for their businesses. Fair enough — this model has, until now, worked well for them. But it's a risky model when you rely too much on one source of supply for your livelihood — particularly when you have new leaders telling you that they're going to take actions that will put that source of supply in jeopardy. Of course that's easier said than done. But, like my New Jersey client, those small-business owners should also have been looking ahead and mitigating their potential risk. My client saw the writing on the wall two years ago and took steps to prepare. And they weren't the only ones. The chief strategy officer for a robotics company, for example, said he always 'plans ahead 9-12 months' and had a 'plan B' to produce necessary hardware outside of China, where it was operating before. 'Maybe this is also a good time to say, 'Let's not put all the eggs in one basket,'' he told CNN, 'and, you know, start looking on other kind of territories that will reduce the risk for us going forward.' According to an NPR report, a Maryland business owner — a former Marine (no surprise) — has been stockpiling products for months in advance of looming tariffs, admitting that his 'warehouse was bursting.' But then there are the countless other small-business owners who just like to keep their fingers crossed and hope against hope that nothing bad will happen. That's no way to run a business, especially when there are employees with families who are relying on your decisions. So do I feel bad for those business owners suffering under Trump's tariffs? I do. But this is the game you play when you run a business. You take risks, you reap rewards. And if you don't plan ahead and diversify, you suffer the consequences. Gene Marks is founder of The Marks Group, a small-business consulting firm.
Forbes
28-03-2025
- Business
- Forbes
The B-School Paradox: Is Entrepreneurship Really A ‘20-Worst' Major?
Does Entrepreneurial Education Need Improvement? A recent article ranks "Entrepreneurship" among the 20 most useless college degrees ( Is this true? Is entrepreneurial education a waste of time? Does entrepreneurship belong in business schools? Are business schools failing the very students they aim to help? Here are three ways business schools may be hurting aspiring entrepreneurs. Many business school entrepreneurship programs focus on small business management, but do aspiring entrepreneurs really need a four-year degree to start or manage a business? Especially when most business schools emphasize corporate skills over the specific disciplines that drive startup success, such as: The skills needed for small business management can often be learned faster and more affordably outside of a traditional four-year program. Practical alternatives, such as Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), offer real-world training at a fraction of the cost and time of a traditional degree. These programs allow entrepreneurs to learn while building their business – without accumulating unnecessary student debt. #2. Business Schools Push a VC-Centric Approach that helps Few While some business schools teach bootstrapping, most focus on innovation theories, product-market fit, and venture capital. This approach, modeled after Silicon Valley's VC-focused incubators and startup ecosystem, promotes pitching and angel investors. While this may sound promising to many aspiring entrepreneurs, the reality is sobering: In contrast, billion-dollar entrepreneurs rarely start with, or use, VC funding. A study of 87 billion-dollar entrepreneurs found that only ~1% followed the traditional VC path from the outset ( Instead, they built their companies using strategic business skills and finance-smart strategies. This category includes entrepreneurs such as Sam Walton, Michael Dell, Joe Martin, and Gaston Taratuta who never got VC funding. Despite these clear examples, business schools continue to prioritize a VC-driven playbook that serves only a select few – leaving most aspiring entrepreneurs unprepared for real-world success. Most business schools are designed for corporate-minded students, with the MBA serving as a finishing program for those pursuing executive roles. Entrepreneurship often feels like an afterthought – or worse, a cynical tool to raise funding from successful alumni – rather than a serious discipline. This corporate bias is reflected in the curriculum, which prioritizes a focus on managing existing businesses that have capital rather than the reality of how billion-dollar entrepreneurs started new unicorns. The high cost of an MBA, paired with the uncertain return on investment from launching a venture, further reinforces this corporate focus. To remain relevant in growth entrepreneurship, business schools must rethink their approach for aspiring unicorn-entrepreneurs – placing the skills and strategies of unicorn-entrepreneurs at the core of their programs and equipping students with the skills to build growth-focused ventures without VC. After takeoff, entrepreneurs will not need to pitch – VCs will come to the entrepreneurs as they did with Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jan Koum ( If business schools want to justify their cost and value for entrepreneurs, they must shift focus. A staggering 94% of billion-dollar entrepreneurs launched without VC, and 76% avoided it altogether. By doing so, they kept control of their companies, and captured more of the wealth they created (( Yet many business schools still emphasize pitch competitions, incubators, and VC attraction strategies – an approach that benefits only a small fraction of startups and mainly in Silicon Valley. Their students can benefit more by learning the skills that actually help entrepreneurs build and scale giant companies. MY TAKE: No wonder entrepreneurship ranks among the 20 worst majors. Business schools are mimicking Harvard and Stanford, pushing a VC-centric curriculum instead of teaching unicorn-entrepreneurship—the skills to build billion-dollar businesses without VC. Most students will never raise VC, succeed with VC, or profit from VC. Shouldn't we prepare them for reality?
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Don't abolish the Small Business Association when communities need it most
While cutting government waste has been Priority No.1 in Washington this year, a recent op-ed by Gene Marks calling for the abolition of the U.S. Small Business Administration missed the mark in a major way, deeming the SBA 'a failed experiment.' Calls to dismantle the SBA in the name of savings or efficiency are not only misguided — they pose a threat to the millions of entrepreneurs who rely on its programs. Small businesses are often started by individuals with innovative ideas but without the necessary financial resources or business expertise to navigate the complexities of entrepreneurship. The SBA steps in to bridge this gap, offering critical support through its lending programs, Small Business Development Centers and procurement assistance. Without these resources, many aspiring business owners would struggle to access capital, secure government contracts, or recover from economic downturns and natural disasters. The SBA was expressly created to address this fundamental market failure. The SBA's loan programs, including the widely used 7(a) and 504 loans, have enabled countless entrepreneurs to secure financing when traditional banks would not take the risk. Each year, the agency facilitates tens of billions of dollars in small-business loans, fueling job creation and innovation. Critics argue that private lenders and investors can fill this gap, but history tells a different story. Without the SBA's guarantees, many small businesses — including those owned by veterans — would struggle to secure the funding they need. Beyond lending, the SBA plays an essential role in federal procurement. Small businesses received over $180 billion in government contracts last year, thanks in large part to the SBA's advocacy and oversight. Eliminating the agency would consolidate more power in the hands of large corporations, making it even harder for small firms to compete. The SBA has also proven indispensable in times of crisis. Whether responding to natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires or economic downturns, as we saw in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency provides rapid, targeted support to keep small businesses afloat. This is especially important in rural and in smaller communities, where communications or a lack of resources may pose challenges in getting business owners the help they need and deserve. Removing this safety net would leave entrepreneurs more vulnerable and threaten the economic stability of communities nationwide. One of the biggest challenges small businesses already face is a lack of knowledge about the federal programs designed to help them. The SBA serves as a central hub, providing clear, accessible guidance that ensures small-business owners can navigate available resources effectively. Without this dedicated support, entrepreneurs would be left to decipher a complex web of government programs spread across multiple agencies, increasing confusion and inefficiencies. Rather than dismantling the SBA, we should be working to strengthen it. Congress should focus on improving the efficiency and reach of SBA programs, ensuring that small businesses have the resources they need to thrive in an increasingly competitive economy. There are over 60 million people in the U.S. directly employed by small businesses. Their success is integral to the nation's economic growth and prosperity. The SBA is not a bureaucratic obstacle — it is a necessary partner in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation. If we truly care about the future of small businesses and the economic vitality they bring to our communities, we must invest in and modernize the SBA, not eliminate it. Todd McCracken is president of the National Small Business Association. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
25-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Don't abolish the Small Business Association when communities need it most
While cutting government waste has been Priority No.1 in Washington this year, a recent op-ed by Gene Marks calling for the abolition of the U.S. Small Business Administration missed the mark in a major way, deeming the SBA 'a failed experiment.' Calls to dismantle the SBA in the name of savings or efficiency are not only misguided — they pose a threat to the millions of entrepreneurs who rely on its programs. Small businesses are often started by individuals with innovative ideas but without the necessary financial resources or business expertise to navigate the complexities of entrepreneurship. The SBA steps in to bridge this gap, offering critical support through its lending programs, Small Business Development Centers and procurement assistance. Without these resources, many aspiring business owners would struggle to access capital, secure government contracts, or recover from economic downturns and natural disasters. The SBA was expressly created to address this fundamental market failure. The SBA's loan programs, including the widely used 7(a) and 504 loans, have enabled countless entrepreneurs to secure financing when traditional banks would not take the risk. Each year, the agency facilitates tens of billions of dollars in small-business loans, fueling job creation and innovation. Critics argue that private lenders and investors can fill this gap, but history tells a different story. Without the SBA's guarantees, many small businesses — including those owned by veterans — would struggle to secure the funding they need. Beyond lending, the SBA plays an essential role in federal procurement. Small businesses received over $180 billion in government contracts last year, thanks in large part to the SBA's advocacy and oversight. Eliminating the agency would consolidate more power in the hands of large corporations, making it even harder for small firms to compete. The SBA has also proven indispensable in times of crisis. Whether responding to natural disasters like hurricanes and wildfires or economic downturns, as we saw in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency provides rapid, targeted support to keep small businesses afloat. This is especially important in rural and in smaller communities, where communications or a lack of resources may pose challenges in getting business owners the help they need and deserve. Removing this safety net would leave entrepreneurs more vulnerable and threaten the economic stability of communities nationwide. One of the biggest challenges small businesses already face is a lack of knowledge about the federal programs designed to help them. The SBA serves as a central hub, providing clear, accessible guidance that ensures small-business owners can navigate available resources effectively. Without this dedicated support, entrepreneurs would be left to decipher a complex web of government programs spread across multiple agencies, increasing confusion and inefficiencies. Rather than dismantling the SBA, we should be working to strengthen it. Congress should focus on improving the efficiency and reach of SBA programs, ensuring that small businesses have the resources they need to thrive in an increasingly competitive economy. There are over 60 million people in the U.S. directly employed by small businesses. Their success is integral to the nation's economic growth and prosperity. The SBA is not a bureaucratic obstacle — it is a necessary partner in fostering entrepreneurship and innovation. If we truly care about the future of small businesses and the economic vitality they bring to our communities, we must invest in and modernize the SBA, not eliminate it.
